David Roundy wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 4:58 AM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmm, this worries me a bit. I typically have many GHC trees, and I
>> anticipate using a cache with darcs 2, so will this mean that whatsnew will
>> sometimes miss changes? Or will it just be slower?
>
> Well, using the file-modification-times optimization always means that
> whatsnew will sometimes miss changes, since it's always possible that
> the pristine cache will have the same timestamp as the working
> directory file, but this is unlikely (and no more likely when
> interacting with multiple repositories, it's actually in a single
> repository that you're more likely to modify a file in the working
> directory within a second of when a darcs record is performed). The
> main issue would be that it'd be slower. This shouldn't be a big
> issue, since whichever darcs repository you last recorded in (or
> pulled into, etc) will have a fast whatsnew.
>
> One other possibility would be that we could disable global caching of
> the pristine cache (bad confusion of the term "cache" here).
Ok. Though it seems the right thing to do is to store the modification
times in a file under _darcs, the file just needs to contain a list of
(<file>,<time>) pairs that you read into a Data.Map (you're really just
using the filesystem as a Data.Map at the moment). The question is how
much hacking you'd have to do to make this fast enough... I don't know. It
shouldn't be too hard to beat stat() with Data.Map, but there's the
overhead of populating the Data.Map in the first place.
I guess this isn't a high priority now. But it would be good if it were
possible to disable globally caching the pristine copy, so we can get the
darcs1 behaviour. Perhaps have separate 'cache:' and 'cachepristine:'?
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
